Which brings us to the second part: the nature of the lie. Remember, not all lies are equally harmful. In this case, the U.S. government responded to the murder of four Americans by treating our constitutional rights as part of the problem. A former teacher of constitutional law, Obama was happy to watch the country argue new limits on free expression and the necessity of giving bloodthirsty savages and terrorists a heckler's veto on what Americans can do or say.

Hillary was part of this administration. By the time Obama made his appearance at the UN, and again mentioned the video (which even the President of Libya called a ridiculous story), if she really had any honor, how could she stay affiliated with a POTUS who could say: "The future does not belong to those who slander the Prophet Mohammed."? Truthfully, I was stunned by that statement (for which there is ample documentation). By then, she KNEW, and Obama knew, that the video was not relevant to much of anything.

The Constitution states that the govt shall not establish a religion or prevent free exercise of religion ... so why didn't his words, instead, refer to slandering any (or all) "faiths" ... that would include Jewish and Christian, as well as many other faiths who might claim smaller numbers of adherents; even atheists. The Constitution protects ALL faiths, not just Islam. If there are members of the UN who are Hindu or Buddhist, they should be just as offended by such a statement as Jews and Christians. If they are Coptic Christians in the ME countries where they are persecuted, they should be absolutely appalled and frightened by such a statement from an American President.

Is it a coincidence that the same Amendment that guarantees freedom of religion also guarantees free speech? Maybe not a coincidence in the minds of the Founding Fathers?

01-26-2013, 06:33 PM

Gerry Clinchy

Buzz, this is from American Thinker. I've quoted what appears to be factual stuff.

Quote:

...why Obama didn't give orders to defend our consulate and American lives in Benghazi. The answer is becoming clearer each time President Obama and Secretary of Defense Panetta issue a denial or explanation of their inaction.

...an honest reporter during a local interview on the campaign trail in Denver. On October 26, for the first time, Obama was asked directly about the explosive reports on CBS and Fox News, a week earlier, that the CIA and our military denied direct requests for help by the Americans fighting for their lives during the seven-hour battle in Benghazi.

Denver TV's Kyle Clark twice tried to pin Obama down by asking the key question: "Were they denied requests for help during the attack?"

Obama's answer is the proof of his guilt, and it gives us a clue as to the doctrine informing his decision to do nothing. The most damaging part of Obama's evasive answer is this:

... the minute I found out what was happening, I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to. ... I guarantee you that everyone in the state department, our military, the CIA, you name it, had number-one priority making sure that people were safe.
This is the blatant lie that condemns the liar. The president says here that immediately, "the minute I found out what was happening," he gave the order to the military, the CIA, to everyone, to secure our personnel in Benghazi and do "whatever we need to."

Yet the undeniable fact is that nothing was done. We know that the CIA security agent in Benghazi, Tyrone Woods, asked for permission to rescue Ambassador Stevens when Stevens was still alive and in the safe room. Woods was told twice by the CIA to stand down. He then disobeyed direct orders and rescued the survivors at the consulate, but it was too late for Stevens and Sean Smith.Secretary of Defense Panetta tells us the military had gunships and Special Forces less than two hours away in Sicily but felt it was too "risky" to send in reinforcements or air cover. It would have been normal military procedure to pre-position air cover and assets from Sicily to Benghazi, but Panetta says this was not done. The air support and FAST platoons, we are told, were left in Sicily. All the U.S. military did was send two unarmed drones to observe the battle.

So if President Obama is not lying about his directives, he is saying that the CIA and the Defense Department and our military chain of command disobeyed the direct order of our commander in chief to do everything in their power to rescue our people under attack in Benghazi. And that as commander in chief, Obama did nothing in response to their dereliction of duty.

That doesn't happen. No one believes that; the president is lying. He did not issue directives to the CIA, our military, and State to "secure our personnel" and "do whatever we need to do."We know it was not the CIA on its own that made the decision to abandon Ambassador Stevens and the eight others with him in the consulate. The CIA say they did not advise anyone in the administration to deny help to the Americans in Benghazi. A CIA spokesman on October 27 issued this statement:No one at any level in the CIA told anybody not to help those in need; claims to the contrary are simply inaccurate.General Carter F. Ham, the combatant commander of Africa Command (AFRICOM), says he was never asked to send help.

Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi.

On October 18, General Ham resigned. Panetta explained why no help was sent on October 26, the same day Obama was telling the Denver reporter he had ordered the military to do "whatever we need to."

Panetta admitted we did nothing. He says the military had the readiness and capability to help. He says the military responded quickly and deployed forces close to Benghazi, ready and capable of responding "to any contingency."

We quickly responded, as General Dempsey said, in terms of deploying forces to the region. We had FAST platoons in the region. We had ships that we had deployed off of Libya. We were prepared to respond to any contingency and certainly had forces in place to do that.

Panetta then tells us why the forces were never deployed. He says the top leadership of our military didn't want to send reinforcements, even air support, into harm's way. It was too risky. Panetta does not indicate that he knew of Obama's supposed directives to do "whatever we need to" to save the Americans trapped in the 9/11 attack.

"[The] basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation.

Note that General Ham had already told Congressman Chaffetz he was never asked to provide military support.

Panetta's statement that we didn't have enough intelligence to risk sending air or combat support is not credible. We had real-time information by video, radio, and e-mail. We had laser targets painted on their mortar nest. When else do you send reinforcements, if not into dangerous situations?

Max Boot writes in Commentary:

Special Operations Forces and other military forces are used to acting on incomplete information, especially in a situation where Americans are under fire and in danger of being overrun. At that point, caution is normally thrown to the wind, and Quick Reaction Forces are launched.

We certainly could have saved the lives of CIA agents Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty if President Obama had given orders to do so. There were two drones and perhaps a gunship overhead. The two men died because they painted laser targets on the jihadi mortar nests. They were radioing for air cover, expecting that the target would be bombed and the jihadi attack ended. This is what Navy SEALs do. We have learned from experts that American Special Forces paint such laser targets only when air cover is immediately available, as it gives away your position to the enemy. According to these experts, Woods and Doherty must have believed that air cover was immediately available. Their calls for air support went unanswered, and they died.If there weren't a manned drone and a gunship sent out -- it was now six hours into the battle -- that indicates that Obama and Panetta did not direct the military to be ready to intervene if necessary. If the drone was sent unarmed and the gunship never sent, it says the military never intended to help under any circumstances.

Bing West, a distinguished combat correspondent and former assistant secretary of defense, has produced a timeline of the Benghazi attacks, which went on for most of the night, suggesting there was plenty of time for substantial U.S. forces to scramble from the U.S. base at Sigonella, Sicily, located almost exactly as far away from Benghazi as the Libyan capital of Tripoli, from whence a small, ill-armed quick-reaction force of 22 men was finally sent. "Stationed at Sigonella," he notes, "were Special Operations Forces, transport aircraft, and attack aircraft - a much more formidable force than 22 men from the embassy."

President Obama says, "I gave three very clear directives. Number one, make sure that we are securing our personnel and doing whatever we need to." It is clear that he did not issue such a directive, or else the CIA and the military defied him.http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz2J7sbNuRU

Yet, Hillary was never informed of what was going on? It's not clear when POTUS was informed. He only states, "The minute I found out ..." No time of when that was. After it was over? Within a 1/2 hr of when it began? It should be easy to document the timing at the WH, shouldn't it?

01-26-2013, 07:32 PM

Marvin S

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

I try to be polite to everyone on this Forum. If your comment was meant to be an insult to my intelligence, I commend you on your success.

I've noticed that :), you might want to read my byline. There is a reason I post that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDogger

Aircraft are not always a good response to a small firefight.

Was it a good idea to have a basically unguarded open consulate in Benghazi? Or a large international staff in a NG facility in Algeria? We have diplomatic and private industry staff placed around the globe. Is it possible to forsee every contingency and event?

Your comparison of a government facility & a facility run by free enterprise is an apples & oranges comparison.

The SD facility should be able to call upon the full force of our government or it should not be there. That is owed to the folks stationed there :confused:.

Those folks running the NG facility know the risks they take, it comes with the high profit territory. When I worked in the Phillipines the company had their own little army, fully mobilized on payday, which was all done in cash. The NG facility should have had the same! The private industry staff is responsible for their own upkeep.

As for looking into a crystal ball - there was a time in management that managers were expected to foresee events & those who did not suffered the consequences :).

01-26-2013, 11:08 PM

JDogger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin S

I've noticed that :), you might want to read my byline. There is a reason I post that.

Your comparison of a government facility & a facility run by free enterprise is an apples & oranges comparison.

The SD facility should be able to call upon the full force of our government or it should not be there. That is owed to the folks stationed there :confused:.

Those folks running the NG facility know the risks they take, it comes with the high profit territory. When I worked in the Phillipines the company had their own little army, fully mobilized on payday, which was all done in cash. The NG facility should have had the same! The private industry staff is responsible for their own upkeep.

As for looking into a crystal ball - there was a time in management that managers were expected to foresee events & those who did not suffered the consequences :).

In conclusion, I'll state that I believe IRT Benghazi we will never know with certainty...Were there mistakes made that night....? Yes. Were there mistakes made afterward...? Yes.
Was there a conspiracy and cover-up... No. SH** happens. The world is a dangerous place. It's not likely to get any better any time soon. JD

01-26-2013, 11:20 PM

Gerry Clinchy

Quote:

Originally Posted by huntinman

You may be like them, but I don't think I am and I don't think the "average" American is anything like these power hungry jerks that go into public office as average Joes and become multi-millionaires... Lavishing themselves with every perk, while telling us we need to cut back... At the same time they are increasing our taxes. They surround themselves with armed guards, but want to take our guns. (To keep us safe).

No they are not like me.

Bill, I think he meant that the people working in the intelligence dept were just like us ... not the POTUS and SOS.

01-26-2013, 11:25 PM

JDogger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

Bill, I think he meant that the people working in the intelligence dept were just like us ... not the POTUS and SOS.

Thank you!

01-26-2013, 11:30 PM

Gerry Clinchy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marvin S

I've noticed that :), you might want to read my byline. There is a reason I post that.

Your comparison of a government facility & a facility run by free enterprise is an apples & oranges comparison.

The SD facility should be able to call upon the full force of our government or it should not be there. That is owed to the folks stationed there :confused:.

Those folks running the NG facility know the risks they take, it comes with the high profit territory. When I worked in the Phillipines the company had their own little army, fully mobilized on payday, which was all done in cash. The NG facility should have had the same! The private industry staff is responsible for their own upkeep.

As for looking into a crystal ball - there was a time in management that managers were expected to foresee events & those who did not suffered the consequences :).

To add to this, again from American Thinker, Marine General James Mattis is being fired. According to a Pentagon reporter, Tom Ricks, this is because Mattis is insisting on complete contingency planning.

I think we have to believe that if Tyrone Woods thought air support would not be useful, he wouldn't have been laser painting the target for what he believed would be an armed drone. He was the one with boots on the ground.

Marvin, being polite does not mean befriending ... I even am polite to my ex :-)

01-26-2013, 11:38 PM

Gerry Clinchy

Buzz, the intelligence people may have only been a scapegoat. We know that the CIA sent a timely message calling the incident a terrorist attack ... but we didn't know that until much later, from testimony before the Congressional Committee. DC did not deny that such a message came from the CIA ... but that it "got lost" in the volume of incoming messages. It would appear that the sender of the message was competent, but whoever was supposed to read those messages was much less so.

01-27-2013, 12:03 AM

JDogger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

Buzz, the intelligence people may have only been a scapegoat. We know that the CIA sent a timely message calling the incident a terrorist attack ... but we didn't know that until much later, from testimony before the Congressional Committee. DC did not deny that such a message came from the CIA ... but that it "got lost" in the volume of incoming messages. It would appear that the sender of the message was competent, but whoever was supposed to read those messages was much less so.

Gerry, I don't see where Buzz has ever posted in this thread. I do agree with you, however that the thousands of messages sent within the intelligence community sometimes get lost or misinterpreted. Much the same happens within the news reporting community. It is unfortunate that much information is dissiminated before it is substantiated. Then it gains legs of its own, and is repeated often enough to appear as true. One of the risks of our internet 24 hour news cycle, blogs, and just outright disinformation is the repeating of stories and theories. We distrust our government and distrust our news sources as well.
Where do we go? JD

01-27-2013, 01:11 AM

Gerry Clinchy

Quote:

Originally Posted by JDogger

Gerry, I don't see where Buzz has ever posted in this thread.

You're right ... my mistake there.

I do agree with you, however that the thousands of messages sent within the intelligence community sometimes get lost or misinterpreted.

I have to think that they have some kind of prioritization system to separate out the routine from the urgent; and 9/11 has been a higher alert date ever since the original attack.

Much the same happens within the news reporting community. It is unfortunate that much information is dissiminated before it is substantiated. Then it gains legs of its own, and is repeated often enough to appear as true. One of the risks of our internet 24 hour news cycle, blogs, and just outright disinformation is the repeating of stories and theories. We distrust our government and distrust our news sources as well.
Where do we go? JD

I think that we have to actually pay attention to things as Helen did by listening to the actual testimony, public statements that are not adulterated.

I would grant that govt statements would have some duty to protect "assets" in the intelligence community.

I think it is reasonable that there are some weapons out there from Gadafi's "collection" that have gotten into the hands of AQ & its affiliates. That would be unintended consequences of US assistance in ousting Gadafi.

Perhaps the more disappointing thing is that the Inauguration Speech does not indicate that policies that have not worked in four years will not be "recalibrated" to account for what hasn't worked.

Just read about $120 million in Medicare fraud of payments that went to prisoners and illegals (who are NOT eligible for those programs) ... and an admission that there was no mechanism to detect this fraud in time to prevent the payments being made & no mechanism to get the $ back. Now they're going to work on it. In the latter scam, no services were ever rendered, just fraudulent claims submitted. Newt's suggestion of turning this high-tech stuff over to American Express seems more attractive in the face of this report. Too bad they didn't take IBM's offer to give that free software to the govt four years ago. We'd be $120 million less in the hole ... and more, since this was just one small area of fraud.

I once had one of my credit card #s lifted from a receipt; some years ago before the new electronic readers ... there were about $1000 of fraudulent purchases when the CC company called me to make sure they were not my purchases. The card # had already been refused at a 5th location. Private sector has done a good job on stuff like that since it is their own $ at stake. Govt has no skin in the game, so to speak.